Promise-Law connection

[RandyPNW]

There is a connection between the Covenant of Abraham and the Covenant of Moses' Law that is tenuous and temporary. Paul called the Abrahamic Covenant a "promise," and he called the Law "temporary." He saw Christ as the eternal fulfillment of that promise, leading to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Law, initially connected to that Covenant, was a temporary fill-in.

Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Gal 3.14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Abraham was promised the salvation of Israel and of many nations of faith. But this covenant was made with Abraham, as well as with Christ, on the basis of circumcision, and it was made with Israel on the basis of the Law of Moses.

Christ did not immediately come to bring final redemption for those under the Law, who remained hindered from access to the Tree of Life. And this was the purpose of the Law, to confirm that access to the Tree of Life was hindered by the guilt of human sin, and to show that the promises of God could not be fulfilled until guilt was completely and finally dealt with.

Gen 3. 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

But God provided hope, through the Messiah, a descendant of Eve, of a means back to the Tree of Life.

Gen 3.14 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent,... 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

God's plan of redemption of humanity after the Fall continued with Abraham, and this is what Paul referred to as the "promise"...

Gen 17.1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised."

The problem was, the Law was given to restrict access to the Tree of Life, while at the same time providing a basis for a relationship between God and Israel. Since the Law restricted access to the Tree of Life, its practice was strictly temporary, until Christ could come and establish both a relationship with God and access to the Tree of Life.

The Law therefore had to be detached, along with circumcision, from the covenant God made with Abraham and with Christ, Abraham's seed. As long as the Law was connected to this covenant, the promise of international salvation could not take place. Relationship between God and Israel would only be temporary.

As I said, the Law established a relationship between God and Israel, but it was a tenuous relationship, conditioned on replacing this temporary enablement of the Law with something permanent. Therefore, the Law had to be detached as a limiting element of this covenant, to enable man to have access to Christ, the source of eternal life.

In what way did the Law inform Israel of the limitations placed on their relationship with God? It set up barriers, including veils and walls, between God and Israel. A priesthood separated God from the people in some respects. And all were unable to approach God without carrying out certain rituals of purification.

Heb 9.6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Good works were required of men by God, while at the same time the Law exposed human sin as preventing them from accessing eternal life. As long as the Law was in effect and connected to Abraham's covenant, eternal life could not be had, and unfettered access to God's salvation could not be had.

Good works, though they be good, would be mixed with bad works, and denial of access to the Tree of Life would continue to be enforced by angels. The best of the saints would be denied, despite their faith in God, the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises, at least until Christ could come and complete their hope.

Gal 2.16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

The limitations of the Law are removed when it is recognized that Christ provided final purification for Israel and for the world. Faith in Christ allows us to follow him, the source of eternal life. And following him enables us to live like him and have our flaws atoned for in the process.

Christ alone is the way to the Tree of Life, and the only way to have a blessed and an eternal relationship with God. The Law was temporary, and had to be stripped from the promises contained in Abraham's Covenant.

When Christ died on the cross, he gave up any need for Israel to participate, under the Law, in self-atonement. All the guilt of human sin died with Christ on behalf of those who choose to put their faith in him and to follow him.

Living by his Spirit enables us to both be like him and to be atoned by him. It is the fulfillment of God's promise of redemption. It is the only way back to the Tree of Life. Any return to the Law of Moses condemns us forever.

[agnostic]

he called the Law "temporary."

Where?

[RandyPNW]

he called the Law "temporary."

Where?

That was the whole argument. You're not going to find God calling the Law of Moses temporary *while it was in effect.* That would amount to an excuse, for some, to not obey it. But the end was known from the beginning, and even as far back as the time when God gave the Law to Moses it was known that Israel would fail under the Law.

Deut 31.15 Then the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.

This means that Law, as a covenant, would not last. Even though it was restored, it would be broken. And if it was broken, it did not have to be restored.

The promises of God had to be fulfilled. But the Law, as a covenant, would fail. That means it was *temporary.*

[agnostic]

You're not going to find God calling the Law of Moses temporary *while it was in effect.*

Okay, I'll try this again.

Paul called the Abrahamic Covenant a "promise," and he called the Law "temporary."

Where?

[Fenris]

Paul's exposition in general is interesting. However if one does not consider the NT to be holy writ, there's no logical reason to consider it binding. In fact, having read the NT I perceive an inherent tension between Paul and Jesus, because they sometimes say different things.

For example, we have Jesus at the sermon of the mount in the excellent Matthew 5-

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

"Don't set aside even the smallest of the laws, but rather teach them and do them." I couldn't say it better myself.

Paul, (which you helpfully supplied) on the other hand says "because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression." Which paints the law as negative and says we would be better off without it.

And I don't see how those two statements jive.

[agnostic]

Paul definitely had a complex understanding of the law and its function, but I genuinely don't think he believed it was "temporary." Even after believing Jesus was the messiah, Paul continued to think of himself as not just a Jew, but a Pharisee. (I'm not interested whether his later critics agree with the accuracy of his self-assessment.) He continued observing the law. His letters are small windows into his thoughts, and I suggest that Galatians lacks the clear-headed nuance of Romans, which is where he says

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.

The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles. He makes occasional statements on him and his fellow Jews, but by and large his letters are to and about Gentiles. He didn't think Jews should stop observing the law because they follow Jesus "instead," he thought Gentiles shouldn't start observing the law when they became followers of Jesus.

[Fenris]

The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles.

That is...a very interesting observation. One that I haven't heard before. It does give context to his thoughts.

On the other hand, he does seem to perceive the law in a negative light. And that gives me pause to accept his claims of being a Pharisee, because normative Rabbinic Judaism sees the law as a positive.

And his statement in Galatians 2 seems to be a complete break with both Jesus's statement and Judaism generally, "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

[RandyPNW]

The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles.

That is...a very interesting observation. One that I haven't heard before. It does give context to his thoughts.

On the other hand, he does seem to perceive the law in a negative light. And that gives me pause to accept his claims of being a Pharisee, because normative Rabbinic Judaism sees the law as a positive.

And his statement in Galatians 2 seems to be a complete break with both Jesus's statement and Judaism generally, "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Here's the thing I've observed from Christians, in treating Paul's theology. They fail, largely, to see the positive elements in the Law behind Paul's denunciation of those continuing to be justified by the Law.

Paul neither rejected the moral values contained in the Law for Christians nor did he deny the value of the Law as a covenant while that system remained in place. So he dealt "negatively" with the Law only in the sense that as a covenant system it had been superseded by its intended fulfillment, the sacrifice of Christ.

He was negative only in the sense that after the Law had been superseded by Christ, those claiming to be "in Christ" were inconsistently falling back into the OT legal system, which falls short of eternal life in Paul's theology. So he wasn't negative against the Law as a valid covenant system in the time it was in place. But he was only negative against those who claimed to have received eternal life apart from that system and yet continued to endorse it as a presently relevant system.

I can't tell you how often I hear from Christians that the Law and works have little value for Christians under a New Testament system. In actuality, Paul's Bible was in his day the Torah. It was the OT Scriptures, or the Jewish Bible. He benefited from that Bible greatly, and apparently loved it. He was *only* denouncing Christians who claimed to have entered into the New Covenant while continuing to proclaim that in some sense they were still under the old system.

And Paul argued this not just as a religious preference but also as a scholastic Jew who really believed that the Jewish Scriptures were teaching a faith that transcended the Law. Otherwise, Christians are put right back under a system that prevents one from obtaining God's eternal promises. In other words, he was emotionally attached to the idea that the Law *had to be* superseded by Christ, so that the purpose of the Law as a stepping stone could actually result in eternal salvation.

[Fenris]

Here's the thing I've observed from Christians, in treating Paul's theology. They fail, largely, to see the positive elements in the Law behind Paul's denunciation of those continuing to be justified by the Law.

Paul neither rejected the moral values contained in the Law for Christians nor did he deny the value of the Law as a covenant while that system remained in place. So he dealt "negatively" with the Law only in the sense that as a covenant system it had been superseded by its intended fulfillment, the sacrifice of Christ.

Far be it for me to tell you what's in your holy books, but that's not what he says.

"...the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."

He was negative only in the sense that after the Law had been superseded by Christ, those claiming to be "in Christ" were inconsistently falling back into the OT legal system, which falls short of eternal life in Paul's theology.

But, and this seems to be a really big deal, not in Jesus's theology. For example, in Matthew 5.

And Paul argued this not just as a religious preference but also as a scholastic Jew who really believed that the Jewish Scriptures were teaching a faith that transcended the Law.

But in his musings, he seems to come up with this himself. Because the Torah doesn't say this. As a corollary, it's interesting to observe that Paul receives a much chillier reception by the common Jews than Jesus does.

Otherwise, Christians are put right back under a system that prevents one from obtaining God's eternal promises. In other words, he was emotionally attached to the idea that the Law *had to be* superseded by Christ, so that the purpose of the Law as a stepping stone could actually result in eternal salvation.

This seems to me to be begging the question.

[RandyPNW]

You're not going to find God calling the Law of Moses temporary *while it was in effect.*

Okay, I'll try this again.

Paul called the Abrahamic Covenant a "promise," and he called the Law "temporary."

Where?

You seem to have a problem with ultra-literalism. If I say that someone said "the sun is coming out," you claim they did not say that if what they actually said was, "the clouds are breaking and the light is shining."

You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. To fail is the cessation of the Law, meaning that it is temporary. Please forget about your silly tactics, and pay attention to the arguments.

[Fenris]

You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. To fail is the cessation of the Law, meaning that it is temporary.

God doesn't call the law temporary, and as best I can tell, neither does Jesus. Paul is the only one who paints the law as unnecessary at best and in negative terms generally.

[agnostic]

On the other hand, he does seem to perceive the law in a negative light. And that gives me pause to accept his claims of being a Pharisee, because normative Rabbinic Judaism sees the law as a positive.

If someone isn't a Jesuit, are they not a Catholic, let alone a Christian?

Judaism in the second temple era was extremely diverse. One need only read Jewish literature from the time period to see it. This different versions were later considered heretical or unorthodox by Rabbinic Judaism, but that is a later assessment. Pharisees and their opinions were not monolithic, especially the farther outside Judea we get. This is a fact downplayed or entirely ignored too often when it comes to Paul.

Christians > Catholics > Jesuits

Second temple Jews > Pharisees > whatever-branch-Paul-was

He certainly had a very harsh understanding of the law's function, relative to how it convicts people of their sins, but this is hardly abnormal for a second temple Jew with apocalyptic expectations.

And his statement in Galatians 2 seems to be a complete break with both Jesus's statement and Judaism generally, "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

The versions we're each using translate the second word differently, "righteousness" or "justification."

Paul's argument was a person isn't "justified" by observing the law, but by their faith in the one who gave the law. This is why two paragraphs later Paul appealed to Abraham, since he lived before the law was given (3:6). Abraham had faith in God, so Abraham was justified for his faith. Paul's argument wasn't addressed to Jews. He wasn't saying Jews need to stop observing the law. He was saying Gentiles are justified by their faith in God because they trusted that Jesus was the messiah, therefore they don't need to start observing the law (3:7-9).

[agnostic]

You seem to have a problem with ultra-literalism.

You have a severe problem with dancing around very straightforward questions. "The Law says it would be cancelled permanently." Where? "Here are nineteen paragraphs that don't once cite any actual statements from the Law regarding the Law's duration."

You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary"

I think it's disingenuous to avoid providing a clear answer to a clear question, and then to backtrack and change the substance of what you claimed. You said

Paul .. called the law "temporary."

Now you're saying

God called the Law temporary

Obviously Paul is not God. So... where did Paul say the Law is temporary?

when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail.

God literally says the Law is easy to keep.

Deuteronomy 30:11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you

God literally provides contingencies for when people fail to keep the Law perfectly.

Numbers 15:22-26 But if you unintentionally fail to observe all these commandments that the Lord has spoken to Moses— everything that the Lord has commanded you by Moses, from the day the Lord gave commandment and thereafter, throughout your generations— then if it was done unintentionally without the knowledge of the congregation, the whole congregation shall offer one young bull for a burnt-offering, a pleasing odor to the Lord, together with its grain-offering and its drink-offering, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a sin-offering. The priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the Israelites, and they shall be forgiven; it was unintentional, and they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to the Lord, and their sin-offering before the Lord, for their error. All the congregation of the Israelites shall be forgiven, as well as the aliens residing among them, because the whole people was involved in the error.

God literally promises that, if the people persist in disobedience to the point that he will punish them with death and exile, he will restore them.

Deuteronomy 30:1-5 When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back. The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.

It couldn't be any clearer that the Law absolutely doesn't see itself as "temporary," because it had conditions in place that account for failure from the people: prosperity for obedience, discipline for disobedience, and restoration for renewed obedience.

[Fenris]

Judaism in the second temple era was extremely diverse. One need only read Jewish literature from the time period to see it. This different versions were later considered heretical or unorthodox by Rabbinic Judaism, but that is a later assessment. Pharisees and their opinions were not monolithic, especially the farther outside Judea we get. This is a fact downplayed or entirely ignored too often when it comes to Paul.

Christians > Catholics > Jesuits

Second temple Jews > Pharisees > whatever-branch-Paul-was

He certainly had a very harsh understanding of the law's function, relative to how it convicts people of their sins, but this is hardly abnormal for a second temple Jew with apocalyptic expectations.

But Paul claims to be a Pharisee. This seems significant. That doesn't mean that he was one (and I don't take his claim seriously) but he is at least appealing to the group's authority and acceptance by the common Jews. 

The versions we're each using translate the second word differently, "righteousness" or "justification."

Paul's argument was a person isn't "justified" by observing the law, but by their faith in the one who gave the law. This is why two paragraphs later Paul appealed to Abraham, since he lived before the law was given (3:6). Abraham had faith in God, so Abraham was justified for his faith. Paul's argument wasn't addressed to Jews. He wasn't saying Jews need to stop observing the law. He was saying Gentiles are justified by their faith in God because they trusted that Jesus was the messiah, therefore they don't need to start observing the law (3:7-9).

But it seems to me that Paul begs the question by assuming that we need to be "justified" at all. To use terms like that is to already be talking as a Christian.

And sure, Abram (not "Abraham" yet) believes in God's specific promise that he will have children.  (Although as I have mentioned elsewhere, from the Hebrew text it isn't clear who is considering who righteous.) But abstract faith barely features in the Torah at all. It isn't even clear that we're commanded to believe in God (although why would one carry out all the laws if they didn't? Still from the text it isn't clear). In fact, going back to Abraham himself, God explains why He chose Abraham in Gen 18: For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just. Not that he will direct his children to have faith; but that he will direct them to behave as good people. And again in Gen 26: Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions.

[agnostic]

Christians > Catholics > Jesuits

Second temple Jews > Pharisees > whatever-branch-Paul-was

But Paul claims to be a Pharisee.

The "but" makes me think you're understanding my analogy (sorry if you do, I'm not trying to be redundant). Christians aren't monolithic; Catholics are one branch. And even then, Catholics aren't monolithic. Jesuits are a branch of the branch. Paul came from an apocalyptic branch of the Pharisees, which was a branch of Judaism. It was not monolithic, and its branches were not monolithic. Saying Paul wasn't a Pharisee because he believed X but centuries later Rabbinic Judaism believed Y is an anachronistic imposition of later definitions (of what it mean to be a "Pharisee" or even a "Jew") onto an earlier time when those definitions didn't exist.

To use terms like that is to already be talking as a Christian.

"Christianity" didn't exist yet. We're talking about a small apocalyptic movement (Jesus-followers) within a very diverse religion (Judaism) that had spread across the world. We have many Jewish contemporary with Paul, pre-dating Rabbinic Judaism by centuries, to compare his thought process to. The only substantially unique thing is how he framed the "salvation" component of his eschatology around a person he believed had been sent by God.

But abstract faith barely features in the Torah at all.

Paul wasn't saying Gentiles need an abstract faith compartmentalized from behavior and action. His epistles constantly talk about how Gentile followers of Jesus were supposed to live according to their faith. (The key points of contention seem to have been sexuality and idolatry, in both personal and community spheres.) My argument is Paul was only saying -- in contrast to the apparent majority of other Jesus-following Jews -- that Jesus-following Gentiles could be faithful to God without needing to observe the Torah (and he uses Abraham's faithfulness to God before the Torah as the main picture in his slideshow). The idea that Gentiles don't need to observe the Torah to be counted righteous by God is standard in Judaism even today (the whole "Noahide laws" concept). The only real distinction with Paul is that he both categories -- Jews who observe the Torah and Gentiles who don't -- have to believe God sent Jesus to be the messiah.